linear_sieve

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the algorithm's core behavior ('each composite marked exactly once') but lacks critical information: what the tool returns (list of primes? count? something else?), time/space complexity details, input constraints (e.g., valid limit range), error handling, or any side effects. For a computational tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one sentence plus domain/category tags) with zero wasted words. Every element serves a purpose: algorithm name, key characteristic, and classification. However, the lack of essential information makes this conciseness borderline under-specification rather than optimal efficiency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for a computational algorithm tool, the description is incomplete. It identifies the algorithm but fails to explain what it returns, how to interpret results, input constraints, or performance characteristics. The domain/category tags add some context but don't compensate for these fundamental gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'linear time sieve' which implies a 'limit' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'limit' represents (upper bound for prime generation? something else?), its valid range, units, or constraints. The single parameter remains semantically unclear beyond its name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool implements a 'linear time sieve (Sieve of Euler)' algorithm with the specific behavior that 'each composite marked exactly once.' It also provides domain/category context ('Domain: arithmetic, Category: sieve_algorithms'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling sieve tools like 'sieve_of_eratosthenes', 'sieve_of_atkin', or 'segmented_sieve', which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this specific sieve algorithm versus alternatives. There are multiple sieve-related sibling tools (sieve_of_eratosthenes, sieve_of_atkin, segmented_sieve, incremental_sieve, prime_counting_sieve, etc.), but the description offers no comparison, prerequisites, or context about performance characteristics or use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.